Wrap around child care -the child’s voice

No offence taken but after 24 years in the same nursery you have your views and I have mine. My training didn’t stop at level 3 as we have continued professional development. Every year we renew our safeguarding policies we are all first aid trained and follow the eys guidelines. My wage has just gone up to £13 an hour. Wonderful for the time and effort we put in and for all of the extra jobs and training we do. Good luck to all with a NNEB qualification because in this day and age it comes to nothing in the end. I will be retiring at Chris and yes I will miss the children but certainly not the stress.

ViceVersa

As I said above though, it's not always financial. People have had others care for their babies throughout history, for a multitude of reasons. Not everyone is the same - and again, thankfully these days, people have choices.

My mother was a Nanny in the earlier part of the 20th century.
The children were presented to the parents, washed, brushed and in their best clothes, before dinner each evening. The children had had tea with Nanny in the nursery, so didn't eat with the adults.
It was a different world!

Flexible working, a more child centred society is something we 70’s feminists fought for.
I’m shocked by the judgemental critical comments here about ‘dumping’ children in nurseries. In the 80’s there were less excellent nurseries than there are now. My children were with auntie j from age 2 - 11. They’re now 38 and 40 with children of their own. Their children went to excellent nurseries and had a day a week with two sets of grandparents.
My daughters and their partners work hard, they jiggle the demands of running their own businesses with the needs of their children aged 6, 7, 9 and 10. Lives are different. As parents we had regular salary , holidays and sick leave. None of my 4 young parents have this security.

I enjoy gransnet but I’m pretty stunned by comments here

I completely agree with you Cambsnan. It's a very long day for children! Surely in a lot of cases, one of the salaries would be taken up with childcare costs anyway. I understand the points made about not wanting to step off the career ladder and needing two salaries to get a mortgage or rental, but it's sad to miss out on being with your children for so many hours a day when they're small, in my opinion. When parents make the decision to have children, isn't it because they want to spend time with them and bring them up themselves? Of course I sympathise with people who believe there's no other way.

The system in Denmark seems a lot better. I'd be in favour of flexible working for both parents until the child is school.

One of my DDs has a shared care arrangement with her OH. She works full time - higher earning capacity. He works very part time, but he is there for all school runs and does all the shopping and cooking. I think my DD has forgotten how to cook now!

We did it the other way around - OH worked full time till he became too ill to do that at age 42, so I then increased my part time hours. The children were a joint project. I had no family help locally and barely used a nursery - only with my last child a bit from age 3 and then only a couple of days.

It would be good if young parents felt able to make choices that suit them rather than feeling funnelled down the nursery option.

This going to sound very poncy, but if I had thought my children were going to have to go a nursery under 3, I would have upped the contraception! It is simply not something that we wanted for our children.

I do realise that life throws curveballs, and people find themselves as single parents when this is not what they would have wished. Our curveball was OH's illness - which was why the last child went to nursery a bit from age 3, as I was needed to bring home the bacon.

My career choice, like Iam64, was to deliberately not climb the career ladder into management roles, but to stay working on the ground. I much preferred that anyway - I went into my SW role to help folk - not to balance budgets!

Perusing Mumsnet, I am often struck by the pressure that so many women feel to achieve - to climb the greasy pole, to show they can compete with men - this often seems to be part of the motivation. The pressure to achieve starts in primary school and does not let up for another decade or so.

Contentment and balance are what we should strive for and should be part of what children are encouraged to see as life goals - even though for some this cannot be because of the things life throws at them.

As I said above though, it's not always financial. People have had others care for their babies throughout history, for a multitude of reasons. Not everyone is the same - and again, thankfully these days, people have choices.

skunkhair63

It worries me that babies are put into Nurseries full time from 9 months or 1 year old. This seems to be the norm nowadays and I wonder what the long term effects might be. It’s so different to how I raised mine - life seems more pressured for parents nowadays in many ways. It’s so Mums can keep their foot on the career ladder…

I feel exactly the same. I would never have allowed anyone to care for my babies. What career is so important that it comes before looking after your own children. I know lots of people will say it’s financial. When mine were small we had no spare money because I stayed at home but we managed somehow. No meals out, a tatty car, very few luxuries. Fortunately we had the beach so entertainment was virtually free but plenty of activities are free now if people would only look or just be satisfied with less.

ViceVersa

Just as I find your comments about people 'dumping' their children into childcare somewhat accusing too. That's not very flattering to those who work in childcare either.

I completely agree. It is not ‘better’ to choose either option. Different solutions work for different families.

Crossstitchfan

I think the problem is now that people refuse to be ‘not well off’ ( as opposed to being poor).
I am going to sound ‘holier than thou now’ but I do feel strongly that you shouldn’t have children if you can’t look after them. This includes stuffing them into Nursery all day. We were determined that this wouldn’t happen t,o our children (this was the early 60s) so I became a stay at-home Mum. I did work on Saturdays because my husband had the children. This was a precious time for all three of them and I think they were glad to see the back of Mummy once in a while.
Once they got to school age, I worked on Mondays and Tuesdays as well. The children always went to the gandparents on those two d

Totally different times many now would not be able to have children if they had to be stay at home mums or dads. With the cost of buying a home or even renting one two salaries are mostly needed.

Just as I find your comments about people 'dumping' their children into childcare somewhat accusing too. That's not very flattering to those who work in childcare either.

‘Circumstances do change sometimes’. Apologies for the ‘doc name’ rubbish!

ViceVersa

And what about people who have children and then find that their circumstances change, Crossstitchfan? What are they supposed to do?
Thankfully, we are now in 2025 and people have choices which weren't available to parents 40, 50, 60 years ago. Being a stay-at-home parent is great if that is what you want and what works for you - but it's great that there are other options out there now.

Obviously, I can’t cover all eventualities, ViceVersa, and you shouldn’t expect me to! Circumstancs doc name sometimes, obviously. I gave my story as it happened to me, and I made it clear that I understood not everyone could do what I did, and I was not criticising. I found your comment rather accusing.
I consider myself very lucky that my parents and in-laws lived nearby and wanted the children whether I worked or not.

On those two days, they always had gone to them, not so I could work.
We were truly broke rather than have the children farmed out when they were small. No point having them if you have to dump them into childcare. The preschool years were precious to all of us. My daughters are in their 50s now and put our excellent close relationship down to the fact I was always home for them. Before you jump down my throat, I KNOW this can’t work for many of you, and I am not criticising. (There for the grace of God), but if you can afford to be a stay-at-home Mum, I can strongly recommend it.

And what about people who have children and then find that their circumstances change, Crossstitchfan? What are they supposed to do?
Thankfully, we are now in 2025 and people have choices which weren't available to parents 40, 50, 60 years ago. Being a stay-at-home parent is great if that is what you want and what works for you - but it's great that there are other options out there now.

I totally agree with the OP. They aren’t little for long…..teenagers in a blink of an eye. I feel so sorry for parents who don’t have a choice but to work full time and especially so for the ones without family support.

Nurseries are no substitute for family time…

I think the problem is now that people refuse to be ‘not well off’ ( as opposed to being poor).
I am going to sound ‘holier than thou now’ but I do feel strongly that you shouldn’t have children if you can’t look after them. This includes stuffing them into Nursery all day. We were determined that this wouldn’t happen t,o our children (this was the early 60s) so I became a stay at-home Mum. I did work on Saturdays because my husband had the children. This was a precious time for all three of them and I think they were glad to see the back of Mummy once in a while.
Once they got to school age, I worked on Mondays and Tuesdays as well. The children always went to the gandparents on those two d

Our local village nursery is closing due to falling numbers - and the fact that it is just too expensive for many parents to pay for. Being in the position of looking after GCs before and after school - I can't help but agree that it is a hell of a long day for the GCs who are often shattered. Some parents work too far away which necessitates the very long day - my suggestion would be for at least one of the parents to work closer to home and work their hours around their children. Or alternatively find a job that pays well enough for one of the parents to stay home although I realise that the cost of living makes that virtually impossible for some families. Some of the ACs do work their hours around their family by working earlies, lates or even weekends and others have reduced hours and use a combination of GPs care and nursery.
In my opinion the ones in our family that work long hours and travel a long way away are not doing their kids any favours. This shows in their kids behaviour which isn't surprising when they are pushed in the door of whichever GPs' turn it is when they most likely they only want to stay in bed another hour before school and then have to go to football practice in the evening when all they want to do is chill at home.
There is no right way or wrong way as everyone circumstances are different - my own children had a mix of nursery and parents using flexihours but the time they have in nursery is brilliant from the social and interactive point of view but I couldn't tell you if they were harmed by the experience but I do know that their nursery fined parents for late collection because some parents just took the mickey.
Can we find a way of funding parents to be able to work a shorter day? I don't know but in Finland parents can make choice of using the nurseries or being paid home leave to stay home with the child until they are three years old. If I were facing that choice I know what I would do.

Allira

ViceVersa

I don't think any amount of financial support would have made much difference in my case, although I appreciate it probably would do to many. I just needed to go back to work not only for financial reasons, but because I loved my job and needed the intellectual stimulation which came with it. I love my children to bits, but being at home with them all the time would have driven me round the bend.

So what is your opinion of nursery nurses, nannies and reception class teachers?
That they are not intellectually stimulated?

God no, absolutely not! Like stay-at-home parents, I take my hat off to anyone who looks after young children - as I said, it's a bl***dy hard job and an extremely important one too. Just not one I could do - and I'm not ashamed to admit that. Much in the same way that not everyone is cut out to be a brain surgeon or an astronaut.

😯

Oh, to go to the loo in peace 😁

I think the strangest request I've heard of as a registered childminder was the parent who just wanted care for their baby for half an hour in the morning, so they could have a shower.

Chocolatelovinggran yours is just the situation I meant because that happening to my relative too.

In Denmark children have been in creches, from the end of their mothers' maternity leave, which in the 1970s was two weeks, kindergartens and after school clubs for the better part of three generations now.

However, now new mothers have a year's maternity leave, fathers have paternity leave AND we are seeing a move back to parents of young children working part-time, working from home, or in jobs were they can flex. Usually now, it is not any longer the mother who necessarily cuts back on working full-time. Parents either take it in turn, both work reduced hours, or the parent who earns less takes on child-care and housekeeping.

So probably much the same will happen in the UK too.

Whether it is good, bad or indifferent for small children to be out of their homes for nine-ten hours a day, depends on various factors:

How good the day-care is. Whether one or both parent really wants to look after small children. If children at home have play-mates (most don't, after Mummy's maternity leave ends and she no longer sees the other young mothers who had babies at the same time as she did)

It is not always better for children to be looked after in their homes, certainly not if the looking after is done by adults who would rather be doing anything else.

My youngest was with a childminder from a few weeks old- the paid leave was much shorter then, so when the money stopped I went back to work, visiting in the lunch hour to feed.
My husband had handed in his notice to move away with another woman. He took less well paid and part time jobs thereafter.
My only alternative would have been to raise my children on benefits.
Please think of those who did, and are doing, their best to parent in these circumstances.

Jaxjacky

What are single parents expected to do?

It's not easy and must be a struggle for many women and yes, it is usually women who are left bringing up the children.
It was difficult enough with a DH who was away for months at a time but at least we could scrape by then on one salary for a few years. That's why I felt it was important for me to be there to give them stability and my time.

ViceVersa

I don't think any amount of financial support would have made much difference in my case, although I appreciate it probably would do to many. I just needed to go back to work not only for financial reasons, but because I loved my job and needed the intellectual stimulation which came with it. I love my children to bits, but being at home with them all the time would have driven me round the bend.

So what is your opinion of nursery nurses, nannies and reception class teachers?
That they are not intellectually stimulated?